<quoted text>Poor bohart knows that he has lost. All he can do is to rant hysterically and purposefully get evolution and abiogenesis wrong. His only hope is to debunk one of his strawmen. He is totally outclassed by the real thing.At least he is a somewhat entertaining idiot.

At least this isn't one of his usual drive by, straw man attacks.

He is hysterical, both in the humor he provides and his state of mind.

<quoted text>Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =flrhqjN5BHoXX

Oh, that is it. The sources that provide evidence are all wrong.

Did you call these trees and have a long, poignant conversation with them where they confessed they believed in a global flood?

You suffer from jumping to the conclusion you want and ignore all the evidence that disagrees with you. You use conspiracy theory thinking to support your belief. Your bionic geologist hasn't shown anything.

<quoted text>Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =flrhqjN5BHoXX

You present an interview with a geologist who doesn't discern the difference between limestone and pyroclastic depositions in a video from "Origins" as a critically objective evidence? I can't tell which of you liars for Jesus is more dishonest. And by any reference material being an "evolution biased source" it is thoroughly understood that you mean "not creation biased", of course.

[...]Some scientists have proposed that ancient hydrothermal vents may have been sites where prebiotic molecules--molecules made before the origin of life, such as fatty acids and amino acids--were formed.

When fatty acids are in an aqueous environment, they spontaneously arrange so that their hydrophilic, or water-loving, "heads" interact with the surrounding water molecules and their hydrophobic, or water-fearing, "tails" are shielded from the water, resulting in the formation of tiny spheres of fatty acids called micelles.

Depending upon chemical concentrations and the pH of their environment, micelles can convert into layered membrane sheets or enclosed vesicles. Researchers commonly use vesicles to model the cellular membranes of protocells.

When the team started its work, the researchers were not sure that the building blocks required for copying the protocell's genetic material would be able to enter the cell.

"By showing that this can happen, and indeed happen quite efficiently, we have come a little closer to our goal of making a functional protocell that, in the right environment, is able to grow and divide on its own," said Szostak.

"We have found that membranes made from fatty acids and related molecules -- the most likely components of primitive cell membranes -- have properties very different from those of the modern cell membrane, which uses specialized pumps, channels or pores to control what gets in and out," says Jack Szostak, PhD, of the MGH Department of Molecular Biology and Center for Computational and Integrative Biology, the report's senior author. "Our report shows that very primitive cells may have absorbed nutrients from their environment, rather than having to manufacture needed materials internally, which supports one of two competing theories about fundamental properties of these cells."[...]

Carpentras-soil would have the proper origin (hydrothermal vents...which by the way suggest plate-movement and water allready present be it in stone (olivijn) or as is...) and consistency.

<quoted text>You present an interview with a geologist who doesn't discern the difference between limestone and pyroclastic depositions in a video from "Origins" as a critically objective evidence? I can't tell which of you liars for Jesus is more dishonest.And by any reference material being an "evolution biased source" it is thoroughly understood that you mean "not creation biased", of course.

Austin's work on coal formation is included in the texts at Penn State after his PhD work there. He got his undergrad on work researching St.Helen's in the 60's before the 1980 eruption. His work in Grand Canyon limestone's is known world-wide. He knows the the difference. I have found WiKi biased to the extreme and proved so on this site. I do appreciate your looking over the video. Thanks, but I am no "liar for Jesus".

<quoted text>You write:"There is no evidence. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No evidence of any kind that life can create itself, not physical evidence, testimonial, circumstantial or even anecdotal. None."One can say exactly the same thing about your mythical god.

Bullshit.

God has spoken to me, has touched me and I've witnessed His miracles firsthand.

Millions of testimonials are out there for you to read, all with similar experiences.

The scientifically illiterate will attempt to seize upon this to denegrate science and specifically, evolution. In contrast, the rest of us will understand it is not only exceedingly HONEST of science, but it to suggest that the branching of the Neanderthal and modern human (Cro Magnon?) being pushed back further -- if you accept the findings below -- is INCREASING our knowledge of early man.http://phys.org/news/2013-10-hominin-ancestor ... No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans, research saysOctober 21st, 2013 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & FossilsStudy: No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.>

Replaytime wrote: Good timing just four days after they uncovered the "1.8-million-year-old skull" in the Republic of Georgia that suggests simpler human lineage.

<quoted text>that fossil had nothing to do with neandertals, another species of hominid, did it?

Replaytime wrote: Tick scientists have a 1.8 million years old skull that they studied for 8 years and think it suggests simpler human lineage.

Four days later, other scientists countries away, with teeth they have had for years, now suggest Neanderthals and modern humans diverged nearly 1 million years ago and not the prior thought of around 300,000 years ago.

That was my point but I figure you did not read them both.

What does it have to do with Neanderthals indeed (include Denizovans and the Flores hominids) that a bunch of hominids are bundled to belong to the same lineage...woodtick suggested rightly so.

Then we go on about having to read the neaderthals seperated earlier. Not 300.000 y.a but 1 M y.a.Well all nice and fine but the question is who suggested the latter, since different ideas have been around for longer.One of those papers that some here never read.Humans have this ongoing lineage with only at the top a bit of a mix with afore mentioned hominids.Cro magnon by the way was allready clased as H. Sapience .

<quoted text>"but, but, but.... it SAYS!!!" You're making a spectacle. Be a man and quit quivering your lip. Once more, Genesis does not say serpent OR snake, but the word that WAS used is synonymous with snake.English did not come into existence until thousands of years after the Pentateuch was written. If even this glaringly simple thing is over your head then no, you can't make that any "more clearer".On top of that, if you think that a reptile is "craftier" than a raccoon, you ain't much of a redneck, either.

No shit, Sherlock.

Originally,'serpent' was 'nachash' in ancient Hebrew, which when you translate from Hebrew to English you get the word 'serpent'.

Now g'head. Pay yourself on the back for 'teaching' me something I already knew.

<quoted text>Austin's work on coal formation is included in the texts at Penn State after his PhD work there. He got his undergrad on work researching St.Helen's in the 60's before the 1980 eruption. His work in Grand Canyon limestone's is known world-wide. He knows the the difference. I have found WiKi biased to the extreme and proved so on this site. I do appreciate your looking over the video. Thanks, but I am no "liar for Jesus".http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/the-first...http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...

I don't really pretend to follow this discussion but are you suggesting the coalminers cut of the roots just to have a go at the evolutionists?

<quoted text>There isn't anything to argue, plus - I've read your posts.When someone maintains that God wrote the Torah in English because he has both a KJV and a NIV Bible, monosyllabic sentences seem to be the most appropriate response.

I speak English, so when I quote the Bible I quote it in English.

I'd quote it in Hebrew, but Topix is too stupid to recognize the language and it comes out in gibberish.

Please find the post where I stated that the Torah was written in English.

<quoted text>Austin's work on coal formation is included in the texts at Penn State after his PhD work there. He got his undergrad on work researching St.Helen's in the 60's before the 1980 eruption. His work in Grand Canyon limestone's is known world-wide. He knows the the difference. I have found WiKi biased to the extreme and proved so on this site. I do appreciate your looking over the video. Thanks, but I am no "liar for Jesus".http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/the-first...http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...

the bible is known worldwide also and it is proven to be full of outright bullshit.

you fundie idiots will buy into anything if you think it supports your cult...

<quoted text>Oh, that is it. The sources that provide evidence are all wrong.Did you call these trees and have a long, poignant conversation with them where they confessed they believed in a global flood?You suffer from jumping to the conclusion you want and ignore all the evidence that disagrees with you. You use conspiracy theory thinking to support your belief. Your bionic geologist hasn't shown anything.

No, actually i followed the main players into the field, did some self research and then went to college on the geology side. When the evo theories all fell apart there it confirmed to me who was miss leading who. My profs agreed in general to boot.

Kong_ wrote:The scientifically illiterate will attempt to seize upon this to denegrate science and specifically, evolution. In contrast, the rest of us will understand it is not only exceedingly HONEST of science, but it to suggest that the branching of the Neanderthal and modern human (Cro Magnon?) being pushed back further -- if you accept the findings below -- is INCREASING our knowledge of early man.http://phys.org/news/2013-10-hominin-ancestor ...No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans, research saysOctober 21st, 2013 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & FossilsStudy: No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.>Replaytime wrote:Good timing just four days after they uncovered the "1.8-million-year-old skull" in the Republic of Georgia that suggests simpler human lineage.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fos ...woodtick57 wrote:<quoted text>that fossil had nothing to do with neandertals, another species of hominid, did it?Replaytime wrote:Tick scientists have a 1.8 million years old skull that they studied for 8 years and think it suggests simpler human lineage.Four days later, other scientists countries away, with teeth they have had for years, now suggest Neanderthals and modern humans diverged nearly 1 million years ago and not the prior thought of around 300,000 years ago.That was my point but I figure you did not read them both.What does it have to do with Neanderthals indeed (include Denizovans and the Flores hominids) that a bunch of hominids are bundled to belong to the same lineage...woodtick suggested rightly so.Then we go on about having to read the neaderthals seperated earlier. Not 300.000 y.a but 1 M y.a.Well all nice and fine but the question is who suggested the latter, since different ideas have been around for longer.One of those papers that some here never read.Humans have this ongoing lineage with only at the top a bit of a mix with afore mentioned hominids.Cro magnon by the way was allready clased as H. Sapience .p 4858

<quoted text>No, that is not true. Yes, anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it is just about the poorest evidence possible. There is no scientific evidence for God, there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis.Too bad you have no clue what counts as scientific evidence.

There's no scientific evidence for God because man hasn't discovered how to scientifically test for Him.

Do you suppose that DNA didn't exist before man knew how to test for it?

A study of the full genetic code of a common human virus offers a dramatic confirmation of the "out-of-Africa" pattern of human migration, which had previously been documented by anthropologists and studies of the human genome.

The virus under study, herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), usually causes nothing more severe than cold sores around the mouth, says Curtis Brandt, a professor of medical microbiology and ophthalmology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Brandt is senior author of the study, now online in the journal PLOS ONE.

When Brandt and co-authors Aaron Kolb and Cécile Ané compared 31 strains of HSV-1 collected in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia, "the result was fairly stunning," says Brandt.

"The viral strains sort exactly as you would predict based on sequencing of human genomes. We found that all of the African isolates cluster together, all the virus from the Far East, Korea, Japan, China clustered together, all the viruses in Europe and America, with one exception, clustered together," he says.

"What we found follows exactly what the anthropologists have told us, and the molecular geneticists who have analyzed the human genome have told us, about where humans originated and how they spread across the planet."

<quoted text>Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =flrhqjN5BHoXX

No one disputes that petrified forests were buried relatively rapidly (this could be a hundred years or so). What's disputed is any need for a global flood when there are so many other possible sources of burial such as volcanoes, mud slides and the like. Mount St Helens would actually provide proof for this.

Just out of interest, how deep are those petrified trees you've found in coal mines?

<quoted text>No shit, Sherlock.Originally,'serpent' was 'nachash' in ancient Hebrew, which when you translate from Hebrew to English you get the word 'serpent'.Now g'head. Pay yourself on the back for 'teaching' me something I already knew.

3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.